dle Ages. To the idea of redemption and freedom answers the Church which has sprung up among the nations of German extraction, rightly denominated Evangelical, the Church of the Reformation. The Church finally in which all these stages of development are to be carried forward together to their highest truth, under a form of Christianity that shall actualize the conception of a full life-union with God, and to which it may be trusted the ecclesiastical agitations of our own time form the transition, may be characterized as the Church of the Future, whose attributes shall be spirituality, catholicity, and freedom, joined together in the most perfect combination."

If we contemplate Christianity under any of its particular aspects, we will find in its history, the same general law of organical development exhibiting itself. Thus in the case of doctrine, under the operation of this law, the Church arrived, by a long and gradual process only, at a clear and full apprehension of what, in the beginning she held in the form only, of feeling or general conviction and belief. In this process, the first doctrine which came to view, (as in the necessity of the case was to be expected,) was the existence and nature of God, more particularly in reference to the three persons of the Godhead, and their relation to each other-or the doctrine of the Trinity; next, the constitution of the Saviour's person, as human and divine, and the relation of the two natures subsisting in him; then the original relation of man to God, his present fallen condition, and the method of salvation, involving the questions of original sin, total depravity, the atonement, grace, and free-will. Having thus grown gradually, and through long continued and severe dialectical and theological conflicts, to a clear consciousness of separate doctrines, the Church next turned its attention to them as mutually related to each other. Reflection upon truth naturally succeeded inquiry after truth. A tendency to form doctrinal systems, accordingly soon made itself manifest. This tendency was most active among the scholastics of the middle ages, who did good service, in uniting and exhibiting in a harmonious manner the doctrines which the Church had already come to apprehend separately. But in their zeal to satisfy this want, they ran

into extremes, and often wasted their strength in hair-splitting distinctions. From having its attention at first turned mainly to the development of particular doctrines, and those relating mostly to the nature of God and the Trinity, the Church was led for a time to forget and practically undervalue the ethical side of Christianity. Hence the Greek Church, which was principally engaged in this work, lost its activity, in a great degree, and became stiffened in the dogmas of a lifeless orthodoxy, a character it still retains. By way of reaction from this mistake, and because of the more practical character of the anthropological doctrines of Christianity, (upon which its attention was chiefly fixed) the Roman Church soon became conscious of the ethical element which is involved in the Christian religion and engaged actively in its development and exhibition. It was also constrained to perform this work, by the necessity of reducing to moral order, the immense mass of rude material thrown suddenly into its bosom from the North of Europe. Hence the legalistic aspect of the middle ages and, the tendency then frequently manifest to regard Christianity as mainly a system of moral precepts, by the observance of which man might be restored to the favor of God. Justification was thus made to depend upon faith, in the form merely of an acceptance of the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, and on works as constituting an actual obedience to those precepts. This co-ordination of faith and works could not continue long, but soon fell practically into an undervaluing of faith and a dependence on works.

By way of reaction, again, from this view, the Church-consciousness was carried over to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was not, however, simply a return to the old Augustinian idea, but an advance to one much higher; and yet, in fact, this could not have been reached, except through the view we have just mentioned. For all earnest minds in the Catholic Church, in relying upon good works, relied upon them not as performed in their own strength, but by the assistance. of God, and thus fell back upon His grace as the ultimate ground of their righteousness, which principle leads, by just and legitimate development, to the doctrine of justification by

faith alone. Thus, the Church of the middle ages, by its legalistic character, holds to the Church of the Reformation, a relation similar to that which subsisted between the Law and the Gospel, or John the Baptist and the Saviour. It served, by its stern discipline, to enable the Christian consciousness to apprehend and possess the element of Evangelical Freedom which Christianity includes; (for true freedom can be attained. only through previous obedience.) It made possible, and prepared the way, for a higher and better order of things, by which it should be abolished in the form in which it had existed, and yet, in its substance and truth, permanently preserved and elevated.*

It remains for us to notice an objection commonly made to the principles which we have been endeavoring to illustrate, namely, that they favor in their conclusions the exclusive claims of the Roman communion to being alone the true Catholic Church of Christ. Before noticing further this objection, which we think is without just foundation, we must first candidly say, that we have very little respect for the spirit which but too often prompts the objection, in the form in which it is usually made. Very many of the religious papers and periodicals of the day, seem disposed to favor or denounce ideas brought to their notice, not according to their truth, or falsity, but according to the extent to which it is supposed that they will produce benefit or injury to particular interests. The inquiry that is pressed with most earnestness, is not, are the principles themselves true, but are the effects likely to result from them, such as are considered desirable. Such a spirit generally leads, in the end, to hidden dishonesty, and to attempts to compromise or oppose truth, under the cloak of great show of zeal for truth.

*The above is the substance of an article sketched some considerable time ago, but which circumstances then prevented us from finishing. Amid other engagements and imperfect health, we have hastily modified it, and made additions. This will, partly, at least, account for its defective form, and for the numerous, and perhaps, too lengthy notes, which had better often have been incorporated with the substance of the article itself. It seems unnecessary, and yet, perhaps, it may be well to say, that no pretension whatever, is made to any originality of thought. The writer's views are obtained from the study of works he has already mentioned.

So, in reference to the alleged Romanizing tendency of these views, we have just as little respect for the spirit in which the objection has often been urged. What if the principles should favor in their conclusions the claims of the Church of Rome, provided the principles themselves are true? It is, nevertheless, unquestionably our duty to receive them.

Personally, we have no special love for the Roman communion, as such, and still less, for its practices; and we certainly are unconscious of the slightest disposition to add any of its errors or corruptions to the imperfections of our own Protestantism; but if a true principle should legitimately produce conclusions verifying any or all of the peculiar features of the Roman Church, we cannot see that in such case we would be under any the less obligation to receive and confess the truth. In fact this cry of "Romanizing tendancy," is becoming too well understood, to deceive any one. Like the talk of nurses designed to frighten children, it is often a mere "bugaboo," intended merely to create prejudice against a theory which may not accord with the wishes or notions of those who raise the cry, and who are too lazy, or not able, to oppose it with sound argument.

The theory which we have been discussing, cannot, under any form, be turned into an argument in favor of the exclusive claims of Rome. The most that can be legitimately made of it, by those who may desire so to use it, is, a historical justification of some of the features of the Romish Church, as growing out of the wants of the Church, and the exigencies of the times, when those features were produced. But the same principles which thus justify them relatively, as the products of a certain stage of Christianity, pronounce just as clearly and decisively their condemnation, when any attempt is made to usurp for them a permanent place in Christian worship and practice; a conclusion fatal to the claims of Rome in their exclusive character. And even this relative justification can be made. out only by showing that the features contended for, are the genuine and legitimate out-growths of the Christian spirit of the age. The whole question turns upon the fact of their le

gitimacy. The principle itself settles nothing; every thing in the end depends upon its application.

But in another way the theory of organic development is fatal to the exclusive pretensions of Rome. It is utterly irreconcilable with her claims to infallibility, and to the Pope being the representative of Christ on earth, the permanent head of his entire Church. To make good the Roman Catholic doctrine on these points, we must, like the Puseyite on the one hand, and the modern Puritan on the other, regard Christianity as perfect, not only in its essential nature, but also in the outward exhibition of itself in every particular, possessed of an externally complete, and entirely defined system of doctrine, practice, worship, and government, &c. Being thus perfect, and thus continuing perfect, and therefore, unchangeable, it must be necessarily infallible. In addition to this, admit that Peter was head of the Church, in the manner in which the Pope is now of the Roman communion, and the demands of Romanists must be conceded as just. But the theory under discussion flatly contradicts these assumptions at several points. It denies that the Church was thus perfect, in primitive times, or that it ever has been, or is now perfect; and therefore, not infallible. It regards the Church as progressing from imperfection towards perfection; which perfection. now exists only in the person of Christ, and which the Church shall possess only when it perfectly reflects His image. So, too, this theory admits and contends for the fact, that changes will take place in the Church, in regard to government, as well as to doctrinal views and worship, and therefore, on this point directly opposes the hierarchical claims of Rome. The circumstance that Newman has attempted to defend the distinctive features of Romanism, by a theory of development, has doubtless misled some, through the similarity of the terms used in both theories, into a mistake in regard to the tendency of that which we have tried to illustrate. They, however, differ in toto. Newman, indeed, recognizes no development of the principle of Christianity in the Church, but only of thought and opinion, a wider application and unfolding of ideas